Dalam kes video lucah pihak pois telah selesai membuat penyiasatan dan pihak polis mendapati tulin,tetepi pihak polis TIDAK mendedahkan identiti pelakon itu.Timbul 1001 persoalan.Tindakan selanjutnya terserah bidang kuasa Peguam Negara.Mungkinkah peristewa tahun 1998 akan berulang kerana kita amat sangsi dengan manusia Abdul Ghani Patail ini. Kesnya pergi menunaikan haji ke Mekah bersama orang kanan Tajuddin Ramli (MAS) menimbulkan banyak keraguan yang mana kes ini masih dibicarakan di mahkamah. Ianya dalam bentuk yang sama dengan kisah percutian keluarga Eusof Chin bersama bersama dengan keluarga VK Linggam akhirnya tercetus isu besar skandal rasuah dalam bidang kehakiman.
Untuk kita berhati-hati dalam merencana strategi seterusnya sila baca surat Manjeet Singh Dhillon kepada Mokhtar Dogong (ingat gelaran itu) yang merupakan salah seorang arkitek memenjarakan Anwar Ibrahim. Awas apa sahaja boleh berlaku sekarang. BolehLand.
LETTER FROM MANJEET SINGH DHILLON TO TAN SRI MOHTAR ABDULLAH
Tan Sri
Re: PR lwn Nallakaruppan a/l Solaimalai
KL High Court Criminal Trial No: 45-40-98
At the very outset let me apologize for writing this letter in English. I would under normal circumstances have arranged for my staff to translate it into Bahasa but there are matters that I am about to set out that for the moment I feel are best left on a p&c basis. Hence the need to keep the letter away from my staff. I have even taken the precaution of hand-delivering this letter myself.
You will recollect that I wrote to you on 1 October 1998 on the above matter citing the recent prosecution of Samsuri Welch Abdullah under the Arms Act 1960 as a comparative basis for you to amend the charge against Nallakaruppan from the Internal Security Act 1960 to one under the Arms Act 1960. I had copied that letter to Dato Gani Patail. I had expected a response from your office but instead, as in the case of my first letter dated 17 August 1998, I had a call from Dato Gani Patail on 2 October 1998 asking to see me on a very urgent basis. Both Mr Balwant Singh Sidhu and I saw him at 3.20 p.m. on 2 October 1998. The date & time of his visit is recorded in the police log book maintained outside Dato Gani's office on the 17th floor of Bangunan Bank Rakyat.
I had gone to this meeting with the expectation that, on the basis of my Ist October letter, there would be some discussion about possible sections under the Arms Act 1960 with a view to an amendment of Nallakaruppan's present ISA charge. To my absolute horror and disappointment Dato Gani Patail used the meeting and the death sentence under Section 57 of the ISA as a bargaining tool to gather evidence against Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He had with him the letter I had written to you and copied to him. He was waving the letter about and kept on saying repeatedly, "I am not impressed" and suggesting that he would not be impressed with any plea to a charge under Arms Act but instead wanted more. This 'more' and it came across very loud and clear because Dato Gani laid it out in very clear and definite terms, was
1. That Nallakaruppan was now facing the death sentence,
2. That there were other charges also under the ISA that he could prefer against
Nallakarrupan but that if they [AG's chambers?] hanged him once under the present charge what need would there be to charge him for anything else.
3. That in exchange for a reduction of the present charge to one under the Arms Act he wanted Nallakaruppan to co-operate with them and to give information against Anwar Ibrahim, specifically on matters concerning several married women. Dato Gani kept changing the number of women and finally settled on five, three married and two unmarried.
4. That he would expect Nallakaruppan to testify against Anwar in respect of
these women.
I was shocked that Dato Gani even had the gall to make such a suggestion to me. He obviously does not know me. I do not approve of such extraction of evidence against ANYONE, not even, or should I say least of all, a beggar picked up off the streets. A man's life, or for that matter even his freedom, is not a tool for prosecution agencies to use as a bargaining chip. No jurisprudential system will condone such an act. It is blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability and my greatest disappointment is that a once independent agency that I worked with some 25 years ago and of which I have such satisfying memories has descended to such levels in the creation and collection of evidence. To use the death threat as a means to the extortion of evidence that is otherwise not there [why else make such a demand?] is unforgivable and surely must in itself be a crime leave alone sin, of the greatest magnitude. Whether his means justify the end that he seeks are matters that Dato Gani will have to wrestle with within his own conscience.
I have agonized over this machinations of Dato Gani's for the last 10 days. I have known you for close to 26 years. I cannot imagine you condoning such an act. And so this third and final letter on this matter and my decision to let you know what transpired on the afternoon of 2 October 1998. How far into your Chambers the corruption has spread I cannot say but that you will have to stop it goes without saying.
Nallakaruppan does not deserve the charge under the ISA bearing in mind what I have set out above and what is tabulated below. The facts relating to the 125 bullets have been set out in my earlier two letters. In my second letter I mentioned the Samsuri Welch Abdullah charges. I have once researched into the Arms Act prosecutions by your Department over the last few years but because of the constraint of time have only been able to go back till 1993, a period well within your tenure as Attorney-General. I have chronologically listed out below all the cases reported in the local papers that I have been able to locate. All that is important at this juncture is to note that even in mattersof far
greater magnitude you have chosen the Arms Act as the vehicle for your prosecutions.
| Berita Harian | Samsuri Welch Abdullah | Arms Act 1960 for the ammo |
| New Straits Times | Johan Awang Jaafar | Arms Act 1960 for the ammo and Firearms (Increased |
| New Straits Times 20 July 1998 [Annexure C] | Leong Chee Keong | Arms Act 1960 for the ammo and Firearms |
| New Straits Times 21 March 1998 [Annexure D] | Low Tian Leong | Arms Act 1960 for the ammo |
| New Straits Times 5 February 1998 [Annexure E] | Vincent Teo | Arms Act 1960. What were the charges against persons who bought and thus possessed firearms without license? |
| New Straits Times 17 May 1996 [Annexure F] | Kiang Nomat & Donald Tuseh Possession of shotguns without license | Arms Act 1960, section 8(a) |
| New Straits Times 20 April 1996 [Annexure G] | 46 firearms surrendered to police to have been improperly obtained |
|
| New Straits Times 3 April 1996 [Annexure H] | Vincent Teo Soon Tiong | Arms Act 1960 |
| New Straits Times 11 December 1993 [Annexure I] | American businessman with 124 rounds of .38 ammo | Arms Act 1960 |
| The Star | Datuk Ibrahim Johari | Arms Act 1960, section 8(a) |
Samsuri Welch Abdullah had exceptionally large quantities of ammunition that had no relevance to his pistols. Vincent Teo's prosecution listed above ['E' and 'H'] assume even greater significance. He was involved in gun smuggling and the illegal sale and disposal of about 240 guns together with Datuk Alfred Chin (Who was related to a senior police officer), a fact highlighted by the director of the CID, Malaysia in a press release dated 27 May 1996. That is by any stretch of the imagination a colossal amount of firearms, enough to equip a small army. If such a matter only warranted the Arms Act, then surely 125 bullets acquired under a licence where the licence has expired cannot warrant the ISA.
This then makes the last case listed above very relevant to your deliberations. This was an instance where the gun permit had expired and had no been renewed. The charge that was framed against Datuk Johari under section 8(a) was for failing to renew his permit between July 1983 end 27 March 1984 when the gun was found in the Regent Hotel toilet.
In the circumstances I will be grateful if you could give this matter your urgent and personal attention. On the available facts a charge under the Arms Act 1960, as in Datuk Johari's case above, will be the most appropriate and no extraneous matters should be taken into consideration in the framing of the charge. In the event that your direction is favourable, the matter could be called up at short notice, perhaps even before Deepavali, with a view to a prompt and early resolution. This will free the Court of the earlier trial dates fixed and save considerable time and expense all round.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Manjeet Singh Dhillon . http://anwarite.tripod.com/letter_12_Oct.htm
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Manjeet Singh Dhillon (NRIC No: 0248545) of c/o Room 308, 3rd Floor, Bangunan Yayasan Selangor, Jalan Bukit Bintang, 55100 Kuala Lumpur, of full age and a Malaysian citizen, do hereby declare and say as follows:-
1. I am an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya with an address for practice at Room 308, Bangunan Yayasan Selangor, Jalan Bukit Bintang, 55100 Kuala Lumpur and the facts deposed to in this Statutory Declaration are within my own knowledge.
2. I am retained as counsel for Dato Nallakaruppan a/l Solaimalai in Kuala Lumpur High Court Criminal Trial No: 45-40-1998 which is scheduled for hearing from 9 November 1998 onwards.
3. I wrote the letter annexed hereto as MSD-1, the contents of which are self-explanatory, and delivered it personally to the Hon. Attorney General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah on 12 October 1998 at about 9.30 a.m.
4. Pursuant to the letter being delivered and as a result of an invitation from him to do so I met with the Hon'ble A.G. at about 11.00 a.m. on 13 October 1998. This invitation to meet him, alone, was conveyed through his secretary.
5. At the meeting the Hon'ble A.G. never questioned or disputed my allegations against Dato Gani Patail. Instead the conversation covered, among other things, the work that he, the Hon'ble A.G., was doing to improve the set-up and efficiency of his Department. Only at the tailend of our meeting did the Hon'ble A.G. allude to my letter and say that the letter was not very clear as to how my client would plead to an amended charge under the Arms Act. My response to that was that the client would enter a plea of guilty to an amended charge under the Arms Act. He asked for a letter confirming this and said that either he or Azahar would revert to me after that.
6. On 14 October 1998 1 wrote a short letter to the Hon'ble A.G. confirming my statement that the client would plead guilty. A copy of this letter is annexed hereto as MSD-2.
7. I telephoned and spoke to the Azahar indicated by the Hon'ble A.G., This was on 16 October 1998. The 'Azahar' in question is Encik Azahar bin Mohamed, Ketua Bahagian Pendakwaan. Encik Azahar confirmed receipt of my letter dated 14 October 1998 and he knew about my meeting the Hon'ble A.G. on 13 October 1998. He went on, in the same conversation, to state, that there would have to 'be something else [i.e more than just a plea of guilt to an amended charge]' and that he would revert when he had instructions. This 'something else' asked for by Encik Azahar was obviously what Dato Gani had asked for on 2 October 1998 and confirmed to me a common approach to extracting evidence from Nallakaruppan all Solaimalai by using the I.S A. 'death threat' as their bargaining chip.
8. I had conveyed Dato Gani's demands to my client on the afternoon of 13 October 1998. There was little that Nallakaruppan could have done to satisfy Dato Gani or Azahar since he had nothing to give them that would have matched their demands, short of lying.
9. I did not hear from the Hon'ble A.G. or Encik Azahar and so on or about the 21 October 1998 I telephoned and spoke to the Hon'ble A.G.. He said that he had made no decision and asked for a further week.
10. There was no further response and so on 28 October 1998 I sent the Hon'ble A.G. a reminder. I received a reply dated 29 October 1998 signed by Encik Azahar bin Mohamed rejecting the request for an amendment of the charge. This rejection letter is annexed hereto as 'MSD-3'. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1960.
Subscribed and solemnly declared by the above-named Manjeet Singh Dhillon
(NRIC No: O248545) ) at Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, this 9th day of
Nov, 1998.
Before me,
(Signature of Judge of Sessions Court, Magistrate or Commissioner for Oaths). Sumber
Sumber:http://anwarite.tripod.com/manjeet_sd.htm
1 comment:
golden goose
off white
kyrie 8
cheap jordan
yeezy outlet
off white clothing
bape
hermes handbags
fear of god
bape sta
Post a Comment